Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the first crime, and three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the second and third crimes as indicated in the holding) is unreasonable, because the Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) are too unreasonable.

(2) The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

There is no particular reference in the statement of grounds for appeal or petition of appeal submitted by the defendant concerning specific mental disorder.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (three years of imprisonment) as to the crime Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court below in the prosecutor’s judgment is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. The lower court ordered the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for six years, and dismissed the Defendant’s request for a probation order.

Defendant

In addition, when a prosecutor has lodged an appeal against a prosecuted case, it is deemed that an appeal has been filed regarding an attachment order case and a probation order case pursuant to Articles 9(8) and 21-8 of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. However, there is no statement in the grounds of appeal or petition of appeal filed by the defendant and prosecutor, and there is no reason to reverse the attachment order case ex officio.

As to the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the crime No. 1 as indicated in the judgment of the court below, there is a reason to consider the Defendant’s sentencing, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the crime and against himself, and the degree of exercise of force against the victim.

However, considering all the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime by compulsion against a female under 13 years of age, and the liability for such crime is grave, and the lower court determined the punishment by taking into account the equity in the case where a judgment was rendered simultaneously with the instant crime, the lower court’s sentencing in this case where there is no particular change in circumstances after the sentence of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.